|
On November 03 2010 07:17 Seide wrote:
The thing is with micro, protoss doesnt have that many heavily microable units outside of the stalker and voidray(discounting phoenix, because comeon it shoots as it moves, not much effort involved). There is the whole thing of you want to send in zealot first, followed by stalker, but actual combat micro... there is very little of it, its very much about pre fight positioning then a-moving while trying to pull back an injured stalker or collosus back.
I think protoss can be strong, but the quality of players playing protoss does not match that of terran and zerg.
Terran and zerg both have several SC1 legends and former proleague A-teamers on it.
The only player who has any kind of notable BW rep currently playing Protoss is SangHo.
Sentries, Templar, Blink, making sure your Collossi don't die instantly because they went a tiny bit to far to the front (or to another deadly location) and btw Phoenixes (?) don't lift on autocast if you forgot. You wann make sure Immortals attack armored units aswell. You can't really say Protoss does not have a lot to mico in a battle, lol.
|
On November 03 2010 07:26 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:17 Seide wrote:On November 03 2010 07:10 dragonblade369 wrote:As for GSL1, I believe Protoss really doesn't have an excuse there.
For GSL2, I feel that the Protoss players have not kept up in skill with the Terran and Zerg counterparts. Take a look at the amazingly intense marine/baneling micro we've seen here this season, with 5-way splits in fractions of a second taxing the limits of 400 APM kept up for extended periods of time throughout games. This season hasn't just been a few "pimpest plays" of unit micro, but it's been an ongoing festival of amazing micro.
When I watch my fellow Protoss play, however, I still see mediocre play and unit balls with very little micro - why are Zealots still wrapped in the middle of balls instead of at the front? Why are stalker surrounds not occurring fast enough when MM surrounds are better than ever?
I think really the key lies in better individual unit micromanagement, and I feel that mid/late game Protoss aren't performing the same level of jaw dropping micro that Terran and Zerg have been. Please teach me how to produce unit at the same time a battle goes on. It is impossible for protoss. In that case, the only choice is to forgot some micro in order to get some units out. Protoss micro will be lower than the other races' simple because warp gate; you can not queue unit up, you must go to a pylon and place each units individually. So experiment with not using warp gates o_O, whats stopping you from instead of getting that warpgate, to use the minerals you are saving from not using warpgates, to build a couple more gateways. I mean you make it look out like such a big problem instead of a boon to be able to warp in units on demand anywhere you have power, so dont use them. Warpgates are a boon to protoss, kinda seems dumb to complain about them like you are. The thing is with micro, protoss doesnt have that many heavily microable units outside of the stalker and voidray(discounting phoenix, because comeon it shoots as it moves, not much effort involved). There is the whole thing of you want to send in zealot first, followed by stalker, but actual combat micro... there is very little of it, its very much about pre fight positioning then a-moving while trying to pull back an injured stalker or collosus back. I think protoss can be strong, but the quality of players playing protoss does not match that of terran and zerg. Furthermore while July hasnt done anything, may that be because of personal issues or a lack of a good practice routine, look at this GSL with Boxer, NaDa, ITR, and even MVP. Even though MVP lost early, he lost to a very good player, and played a higher level than most terrans we have seen. Terran and zerg both have several SC1 legends and former proleague A-teamers on it. The only player who has any kind of notable BW rep currently playing Protoss is SangHo. A name is only a name... julyzerg is recognizable, he hasn't done anything for the zerg race yet. You could have flash and jaedong go protoss in sc2, it wouldn't actually change whether protoss is underpowered or overpowered or balanced or not. They may play it better than other people play the game, but then that would be their skill, not the race itself.
Yep, but Flash and Jaedong have shown high work ethic and experience at the top level. That matters a lot.
While July hasnt done anything yet, for whatever reason, you cant discount the success Boxer, Nada, ITR and MVP. Although MVP lost early, to a good player, he showed higher level terran play than we have seen from most other terrans. Most of those people have picked up the game somewhat late as well.
SC2 knowledge is not that hard to attain compared to the mental attitude of being a champion, and the work ethic and routine of a A team player. They know how to train, they know they have accomplished championships before, and are ready to do it again in this game.
And even if its only a name, we are still seeing the dominant forces in SC2 being former SC1 pros. If you want to look at player quality in reputation terms, Terran especially has much more high level people playing it than Protoss.
Not saying that protoss doesnt have issues, I believe they do myself, but player quality has to be taken into account too.
On November 03 2010 07:27 CruelZeratul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:17 Seide wrote:
The thing is with micro, protoss doesnt have that many heavily microable units outside of the stalker and voidray(discounting phoenix, because comeon it shoots as it moves, not much effort involved). There is the whole thing of you want to send in zealot first, followed by stalker, but actual combat micro... there is very little of it, its very much about pre fight positioning then a-moving while trying to pull back an injured stalker or collosus back.
I think protoss can be strong, but the quality of players playing protoss does not match that of terran and zerg.
Terran and zerg both have several SC1 legends and former proleague A-teamers on it.
The only player who has any kind of notable BW rep currently playing Protoss is SangHo. Sentries, Templar, Blink, making sure your Collossi don't die instantly because they went a tiny bit to far to the front (or to another deadly location) and btw Phoenixes (?) don't lift on autocast if you forgot. You wann make sure Immortals attack armored units aswell. You can't really say Protoss does not have a lot to mico in a battle, lol.
Was more going for the point of protoss micro is different than terrans. You could say with terran you want marauders to hit armored as well. But terran also have stutter step micro to worry about and kiting during the battle. Protoss has to worry about setting up a fight in a favorable position and making sure the right units are hitting the right targets.
The sentries, templar and blink. Yes its micro, but i mean its using abilities, how much micro is that (shift-F click click click). Its very ordinary micro, more about how you place your forcefields and where you blink to vs the actual act of blinking or putting down forcefields. Its not quite the same micro as marine splitting, and stutter step kiting. We have yet to see any use of protoss units in the same way, except voidrays and early game stalker.
As far as phoenix lifting... I dont consider any part of phoenix that micro intensive. Lifting takes APM, but at the core phoenix for me is about knowing there to be and what to hit at the given moment based on there there enemy army is(just like mutas). The actual act of hitting is quite simple. But I thats just how I feel about the unit and my own personal definition of micro. At the same time, I can see your point and view about phoenix.
|
On November 03 2010 07:27 Archduke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:57 robertdinh wrote:On November 03 2010 06:54 Archduke wrote:Correlation =/= causation. False logic: "If Protoss are not winning matches in high-level tournaments, it must be because of race imbalance." In actuality it can be any number of things, right down to the Protoss player forgetting to eat his Wheaties that day. If you want to blame something, blame NEXGenius for being an arrogant prick and not practicing like he should be. + Show Spoiler +He claimed that Protoss was the best race and that he only had to play 20 games a day to beat his opponents. He was promptly roflstomped by a player who had actually practiced for his match. It may be false logic, but it may also be a truthful claim. Can you disprove it? Is it logical that if a race was underpowered it might underperform at top level tournaments where it's imbalances might be exploited the most? It also just shows how misinformed genius is/was. He won a blizzcon and thought he was unstoppable, if i recall he also said something like that he would show the world protoss isn't underpowered. Then he got stomped into the ground.... That's the difference between a top caliber player and a solid player though, nexgenius wins some games and goes "protoss is fine" but he doesn't actually look at the mechanics and who he is playing. Fruitdealer was winning by outplaying people, but he understood his race was still hurting from a balance perspective, and when he lost to fakeboxer he probably also didn't jump to the conclusion that zerg is still UP vs terran. These ex-bw pros have a ton of experience and understand to analyze the game for what it is, win or loss. See, in this case, the onus of proof is on he who makes the claim. If you claim that Protoss vs. Terran is imbalanced, then you'd better have some evidence to back that up, otherwise you're just flapping your mouth and deserve to be ignored. That being said, I wasn't commenting on the balance of the Protoss vs. Terran match-up. I was merely commenting on the flawed logic that many use to justify their preconceived biases. There is a reason that the Blizzard balance teams DO NOT use tournament results as an input to their balance decisions: There are simply too many factors going into the results of a tournament match and too small a sample of games played.
The reason they don't use top caliber play strictly to balance, is because they do not only want to balance for top caliber players.
They want to balance for many levels of play, and many modes not just 1v1.
They also care more about the game feeling dynamic and fresh as time passes on.
|
I personally think that the reason is that there are just less protoss pros for whatever reason.
At the tip top level, I would dare to say that only sSKS and Genius can perform on the level of the other top pros. Sure, other protoss are really really good like InCa and SangHo, but I think that Tester and Genius are the only 2 protoss that can compete at the top level. Zerg has many top level performers like Cool, IdrA, Check, Sen and I think NesTea is also extremely good. And then there is terran with even more like Ensnare, ITR, maybe FoxeR the way he's been performing, DeMusliM, Maka, and theStC.
That's my theory anyways, not imbalance or anything, just the choice of races and percentage of professionals who play that race.
|
+ Show Spoiler +genius got 1 game from HopeTorture, i think that's enough for protoss' =)
|
For those suggesting Protoss lack of tournament success is attributed to the lack of high caliber players, as represented by the other races, don't you find something suspicious about that? OK, statistically for the sample size in tournament finals play, it's conceivable that out of 3 factions, one is rarely, if ever, seen.
I don't know about you, but it's safe to assume every pro player has an insight way beyond mine and will evaluate to the best of their ability which race to choose that will give them best chance at success in their gaming careers. Sure, you'll have Zerg or Terrans saying their race is UP and blah, blah, but don't you think there's a vested interest somewhere in there?
For those promoting the idea "Protoss poor performance in tournaments is due to lack of high quality players", there may some denial here. Could it be most Pros don't choose Protoss because they've concluded there's an inherent disadvantage at top level play? Could it be that simple? Naaahhh!
|
On November 03 2010 08:12 Fwiffo wrote:
For those suggesting Protoss lack of tournament success is attributed to the lack of high caliber players, as represented by the other races, don't you find something suspicious about that? OK, statistically for the sample size in tournament finals play, it's conceivable that out of 3 factions, one is rarely, if ever, seen. I don't know about you, but I know every pro player has an insight way beyond mine and will evaluate to the best of their ability which race to choose that will give them best chance at success in their gaming careers. Sure, you'll have Zerg or Terrans saying their race is UP and blah, blah, but don't you think there's a vested interest somewhere in there?
For those promoting the idea "Protoss poor performance in tournaments is due to lack of high quality players", there may some denial here. Could it be most Pros don't choose Protoss because their exists an inherent disadvantage at top level play? Could it be that simple? Naaahhh!
It could be, but you cant prove it either way. So it could be this, could be that. Its all speculation, the speculation of people saying "weak pros" and speculation of people saying "weak race" are both just as valid because of this.
More than likely it is a mix of the two.
|
On November 03 2010 06:54 Archduke wrote:Correlation =/= causation. False logic: "If Protoss are not winning matches in high-level tournaments, it must be because of race imbalance." In actuality it can be any number of things, right down to the Protoss player forgetting to eat his Wheaties that day. If you want to blame something, blame NEXGenius for being an arrogant prick and not practicing like he should be. + Show Spoiler +He claimed that Protoss was the best race and that he only had to play 20 games a day to beat his opponents. He was promptly roflstomped by a player who had actually practiced for his match.
You don't seem to understand what correlation means.
The problem with your alternative explanations is that they are random, uncorrelated events. They don't explain a statistically significant trend. The real question is of course whether we have statistically significant evidence of an imbalance or not.
|
@Jumbled No, actually Archduke's conclusion is
Causation = Protoss players don't eat their wheaties, therefore they don't win tournaments
|
Let me address the real problem:
The REAL problem here is that Blizzard's balancing methods are just plain stupid. They don't balance based solely on top-tier play (ala GSL). They balance for everything - including, no ESPECIALLY for team games, because team games are such a large component of current 'play' (1v1 is 1 out of 5 other types of play).
And that's why void rays got nerfed! because in team games, you could turtle until you massed a critical number of void rays, and then bye bye the other side.
The problem is how such stupid balancing scales up into the top-tier play, which while not every player can actually execute, every SINGLE player from bronze to super high diamond watches.
1v1 Protoss is hurting so much from this form of balancing. Blizzard assumes that low level play and high level play can be balanced appropriately together, and does this so the thousands of noobs playing in 4v4 and turtling up to mass units can feel safe.
But they CANNOT be balanced together, not in any meaningful way, because they will LWAYS have directly competing interests!!
I'm a noob protoss player. But I don't have to understand all the mechanics to understand when balancing has gone horribly wrong.
P.S Blizzard, I'm a noob protoss player, but if I lose because of my noobiness in 4v4s, thats okay with me! AS LONG AS I know that once I get better, playing my race gets better too. (the upside of scaling for top-tier level play only).
|
RO4 in the GSL is pretty exclusive.
Simply, current P posterboys do not quite matchup to current T and Z posterboys.
|
On November 02 2010 03:15 MasterJack wrote:
Whatever theorycrafting discussion happens, it can only be theoretical. I think it's just due to skill level, as toss was represented in Ro8. there are only 4 spots in Ro4, and 3 races. The odds of 1 race no showing up are not ridiculous. 59% actually accordingly my calculations. Yap, the chance that one race is not in it assuming that each race has a 1/3 chance for each spot is actually higher than that all three are in it.[/QUOTE]
|
On November 03 2010 08:39 Speight wrote:
RO4 in the GSL is pretty exclusive.
Simply, current P posterboys do not quite matchup to current T and Z posterboys.
Yup, just as it's simply the case for P in BW for the last 5 years in OSL, MSL, GSL and every other pro-league.
Edit: @Silmakuoppaanikinko. Given GSL1 and GSL2, the chance of not seeing the same one race out 3 equal ones in the RO4 is 59%. Really?! It's been a while but can I see your combinatorics and permutations?
|
Yeah for people talking about the players in the Gsl and their skill. C'mon! NexGenius may have been overconfident but thats cause he has near perfect blink micro  .
|
On November 03 2010 08:36 andrewwiggin wrote:
Let me address the real problem:
The REAL problem here is that Blizzard's balancing methods are just plain stupid. They don't balance based solely on top-tier play (ala GSL). They balance for everything - including, no ESPECIALLY for team games, because team games are such a large component of current 'play' (1v1 is 1 out of 5 other types of play).
And that's why void rays got nerfed! because in team games, you could turtle until you massed a critical number of void rays, and then bye bye the other side.
The problem is how such stupid balancing scales up into the top-tier play, which while not every player can actually execute, every SINGLE player from bronze to super high diamond watches.
1v1 Protoss is hurting so much from this form of balancing. Blizzard assumes that low level play and high level play can be balanced appropriately together, and does this so the thousands of noobs playing in 4v4 and turtling up to mass units can feel safe.
But they CANNOT be balanced together, not in any meaningful way, because they will LWAYS have directly competing interests!!
I'm a noob protoss player. But I don't have to understand all the mechanics to understand when balancing has gone horribly wrong.
P.S Blizzard, I'm a noob protoss player, but if I lose because of my noobiness in 4v4s, thats okay with me! AS LONG AS I know that once I get better, playing my race gets better too. (the upside of scaling for top-tier level play only).
Couldn't agree more.
The nerf to Void Rays/Zealots and excessive reaper nerf (increase build time? fine. Supply before rax, and nitro boost until factory? WTF) was just...mind boggling.
We can also expect a nerf to psionic storm in the near future.
|
On November 03 2010 00:40 Skyze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 00:03 MrCon wrote:
Immortals are awesome and underused, huk made 3 of them early in each his PvT in EG Masters, that made him "push proof", first time I saw that and he did really well. That makes sense obviously, even against marine, in small numers marines and marauders waste so much shoot against immortals, they are awesome tanks.
What I don't get is you never see any protoss make more than 2 or 3 of them. They cost 100 minerals more than siege tanks and less gaz, and they take so long to kill and make so much damage they worth it im(m)o. I'm sure if they were a terran unit, there would be OP whine about them :D
Well, I guess there reasons for this underuse, but seeing huk make a lot of them very fast against terran and rape very convincigly makes me wonder what are those reasons. Did you not read like afew posts above you? One EMP will dominate 3-4 immortals easily. In fact, If I recall the games you are talking about, Huk vs Drewbie, Drewbie totally missed his EMPS like really badly, and that was the only battle in that game he lost which ended the game.. The other times, Drewbie stuck with pure marauder.. 2-3 ghosts = all immortals dead. You dont even really need ghosts, as long as you have the same amount of marauders in terms of cost, with stim you can snipe immortals so fast (if he went 3-4 immortals he wont have enough money for the gateway fodder units to soak the damage) If you watched the game on Steppes of War, it was RETARDED how Drewbie almost won off PURE marauder, vs every single mix of protoss units.. One tier 1 unit vs storm, collosus, stalkers, zeals, sentries, immortals.. And its not like his economy was THAT much better either, he just knows that marauders basically own everything on the ground protoss has and kept charging forth, if he lost 2 marauders to take out 2 collosus, so what, marauders are so cheap in comparison he didnt need to do anything.. Was very stupid that he almost won from it, and would of if he didnt make afew bad decisions where to attack.
haha finally someone else who notices! I watch a lot of lesser-publicised PvT and generally I like to give T some leeway in case their macro was much better but most of these late game army comps is exactly how you describe it. Mass marauders with a handful of medivacs vs every-unit-you-can-think-of.
There were a number of PvT games that I watched which included HuK, mouzHasu etc where in the late game it was zealot, stalker, immo, colos, HT (no energy archons) vs constantly stimmed marauders with medivacs. Pretty much how this game went was when storms were placed, stimmed marauders that were in the aoe take at most 40hp from storm plus the dmg from stim and basically heal up and this just kept on going back and forth wasting the HT energy
|
On November 03 2010 07:27 CruelZeratul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:17 Seide wrote:
The thing is with micro, protoss doesnt have that many heavily microable units outside of the stalker and voidray(discounting phoenix, because comeon it shoots as it moves, not much effort involved). There is the whole thing of you want to send in zealot first, followed by stalker, but actual combat micro... there is very little of it, its very much about pre fight positioning then a-moving while trying to pull back an injured stalker or collosus back.
I think protoss can be strong, but the quality of players playing protoss does not match that of terran and zerg.
Terran and zerg both have several SC1 legends and former proleague A-teamers on it.
The only player who has any kind of notable BW rep currently playing Protoss is SangHo. Sentries, Templar, Blink, making sure your Collossi don't die instantly because they went a tiny bit to far to the front (or to another deadly location) and btw Phoenixes (?) don't lift on autocast if you forgot. You wann make sure Immortals attack armored units aswell. You can't really say Protoss does not have a lot to mico in a battle, lol.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but if Protoss isn't really a heavy micro race then you end up with a force where stalkers are meatshields and zealots + immos+sentries are humping stalkers from behind, while HTs are crawling to your army in battle and your colossi get sniped either from a range 9 viking or a hyperaggressive stimmed marauder force.
You need to make sure your fastest unit (Stalker) stays behind your slow-moving zealots, immortals and sentries. Preposition your army so that zealots are in front (a-move), followed up by sentries with their radius 4 GS (may need to close in on zealots for GS, and to focus-fire any PDD), immortals need to follow up closely behind sentries (focus fire armoured units), stalkers the fast-buggers they are need to be held back because they love eating concussive shells either provide overall support dps or need to snipe vikings to protect colossi (range 6 vs range 9), colossi needs to be micro'd depending on whether they are getting focus-fired, and not to mention HTs need to be at least either in front or behind stalkers to get off a good storm that is placed preferably in the middle of the T army rather borderline (if you position HT anywhere next to immos = win-win for ghosts) and as for the other gimmicky P units mentioned, Phoenix? with a range of 4 I don't see how you don't need to micro a unit that gets outranged by a tier 1 AA unit :/
|
On November 03 2010 08:36 andrewwiggin wrote:
Let me address the real problem:
The REAL problem here is that Blizzard's balancing methods are just plain stupid. They don't balance based solely on top-tier play (ala GSL). They balance for everything - including, no ESPECIALLY for team games, because team games are such a large component of current 'play' (1v1 is 1 out of 5 other types of play).
And that's why void rays got nerfed! because in team games, you could turtle until you massed a critical number of void rays, and then bye bye the other side.
The problem is how such stupid balancing scales up into the top-tier play, which while not every player can actually execute, every SINGLE player from bronze to super high diamond watches.
1v1 Protoss is hurting so much from this form of balancing. Blizzard assumes that low level play and high level play can be balanced appropriately together, and does this so the thousands of noobs playing in 4v4 and turtling up to mass units can feel safe.
But they CANNOT be balanced together, not in any meaningful way, because they will LWAYS have directly competing interests!!
I'm a noob protoss player. But I don't have to understand all the mechanics to understand when balancing has gone horribly wrong.
P.S Blizzard, I'm a noob protoss player, but if I lose because of my noobiness in 4v4s, thats okay with me! AS LONG AS I know that once I get better, playing my race gets better too. (the upside of scaling for top-tier level play only).
I'm a noob protoss player.
It shows. And that should be reason enough to avoid posting in serious discussions.
Considering the Q&A at Blizzcon for their Balancing, which you have not read, they do an excellent job of balancing. 1v1 balance is of their utmost concern, and the majority of their changes come about from pro insight/replays. The void ray changes, which you so ignorantly attribute to a team change, was directly attributed to a replay sent by a professional player.
The Reaper change, which you again ignorantly attribute purely to team games, also had considerably more thought put into it. The team balance was in the end used as an excuse to push the change out. The actual reason goes into a near unstoppable early Terran rush build, and more importantly, the intent to limit Terran's opening options.
Q: Roach / reaper changes killed off reaper vs Z, do you think this was too hasty and didnt give players enough time to come up with counter strats, Fruit Dealer showed us Z were all doing it wrong
A: Main focus is on competitive level, but we do care about team games and other levels, Reaper Ling was completely and utterly broken in 2v2. On the flip side for 1v1 Terran had too many openers that came out before they could be scouted so we wanted to limit T openers, 2v2 balance was a good excuse to nerf it.
Personally, I don't feel as though the Protoss game is very developed. I only have experience playing against them, but I feel as though their strategies are incredibly limited and easy to prepare for. I think part of it has to do with the lack of pro Protoss pioneers who delve into new strategies and the like, but we'll have to wait and see awhile.
|
I don't think Protoss needs too much changes to the individual unit stats themselves, as that may break the balance of the game, but a lot of the tech/research needs a complete overhaul in my personal opinion.
If they change storm, which they will for sure I think, I really hope its to do with the k.amulet and not the storm itself (nerfing that would make it essentially useless).
But I'd be fine with that if they compensated it with changes like:
-Charge research cost and time down to 150/150 instead of 200/200 (thats just WAY too expensive).
-Warp Prism movement speed research moved to Cybernetics Core instead of Robo Bay. This could encourage much more warp prism usage, and thus creative plays as well.
-Merging templar archives with dark shrine, that way you can tech up to storm tech tree while able to maintain some sort of harassment/defensive ability. As of now, due to the cost/time investment, DT's are pretty much a gimmick all in more often than not. But damage should probably be lowered slightly to compensate for easier accessibility.
-Hallucination energy cost down from 100 to 75.
-Archons should not be affected by concussive shells? Not sure on this one.
-Carrier build time cut at least by 25%
-Void Ray needs to be completely reworked again.
Finally, I don't know what would be fair, but Protoss needs one more detection method - no race is as prone to getting outright GG'ed by cloaked units. For a race thats supposed to be 'most advanced' kinda funny how they have so much less options than terrans when dealing with banshees/dt's etc.
|
On November 03 2010 06:47 Resilient wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:35 emc wrote:
Toss:
observer = cloaked unit, very hard to spot even with keen eyes
Terran:
Raven = easy to spot, very expensive and late game
Scan = terran loses mule ability with this
Zerg:
Overseer = has to give up gas and also risk losing supply
I don't see how toss can complain, an observer will generally stay alive longer and can scout in bases without risk of dying (most of the time). It can also follow armies and watch chokes, something ravens and overseers cannot do. Zerg has to risk losing supply for sending out overseers, they have changelings to follow armies but any competent player will see if they can't control the unit then it's fake. Terran probably has it the worst, they have an easy scan but at the cost of mules which are the equivalent of larve injects and chrono boosts, something you can't waste. Toss has the best detection unit (and also the best static D, photon cannons which shoot air and ground and detects) that is more than just detection, it can cloak and follow armies and do everything the terran and zerg can but all in one.
Maybe that was a balance discussion, but think of it as a rant. Nobody has said the observer is a bad unit in comparison with the other scouts/abilities? The problem (as has been said countless times if you read the post) is the tech tree in which it's located. It's not easy to get Robotics then swap to SG or Templar without chasing the game for its entirety.
no you're right, I was merely pointing out how amazing observers are. Yea I guess it sucks you have to go robo, but that's how it was in BW and in BW zerg had detectors for every overlord so things have changed but not for protoss (as far as techs go, it's pretty much the same). In my opinion, I think the observers abilities more than make up the fact that you have to go robo, that just seems like a poor excuse to complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
